A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On July 18, 2013, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement on the condition that the victim pay 1,929,800 won per month to the victim for 48 months with respect to the CMW car owned by the victim at the office of Gangnam-gu Seoul, Gangnam-gu, 382 as Gangnam-gu, Seoul.

On September 15, 2013, the Defendant delivered the said car to the bond company under the pretext of providing security for the Defendant’s credit card payment obligation of KRW 25,973,284 paid by the bond company on behalf of the bond company to the bond company whose name cannot be known at the Datel parking lot in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

Accordingly, the Defendant embezzled the above car amounting to KRW 86,200,000 in the market price.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statements of the defendant in the second protocol of trial;

1. Partial statement of witness E;

1. Each police interrogation protocol against the accused;

1. A motor vehicle facility lease agreement, terms and conditions of motor vehicle lease, and a certificate of registration;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the details of deposits by mistake;

1. Article 355 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 355 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. Judgment on the defendant's assertion under Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act

1. The Defendant asserts to the effect that he did not voluntarily provide a vehicle, but rather leased the vehicle to a third party to appropriate it for the interest.

According to each police interrogation protocol against the defendant, around July 2013, the defendant obtained a loan from the bond company as collateral for the payment of credit card price, and the bond company directly remitted the credit card price to the bond company, and the bond company did not pay the bond interest, and the bond company took the vehicle on September 15, 2013, and the vehicle stated that the defendant transferred the vehicle to himself.

On the other hand, the witness F finds two bond holders as the office of the defendant and takes the key of the vehicle, and in detail, the key of the vehicle is the vehicle.